******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-45 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Application of ) ) ) Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. ) BRCT-930402KH ) For Renewal of License for ) Station KDTX-TV ) Dallas, Texas ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 11, 1997; Released: February 19, 1997 By the Commission: 1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed on November 30, 1995, by the League of United Latin American Citizens, through its Texas state conference ("LULAC"). LULAC seeks review of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O") of the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, released September 13, 1995, in the above-captioned matter. The MO&O held that LULAC had failed to make a prima facie case that the licensee violated our Equal Employment Opportunity Rule (EEO) Rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080. The MO&O granted the renewal application for KDTX-TV, Dallas, Texas, and denied LULAC's petition to deny. Also before the Commission are the licensee's opposition to LULAC's application for review and LULAC's reply thereto. For the reasons that follow, we deny the application for review. I. PROCEDURAL MATTER 2. Section 1.115(d) of the Commission's Rules provides that applications for review shall be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of the action for which review is sought. For non-rulemaking documents released by the staff, such as the MO&O in this case, the date of public notice is the release date. See 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(4). Although the MO&O was signed on September 13, 1995, it was not released to the public on that date. The public notice of the grant of KDTX-TV's renewal was in Public Notice #60482, Broadcast Actions Report No. 43626, released on Thursday, November 2, 1995. Thus, LULAC's application for review was due by Monday, December 4, 1995. See 47 C.F.R.  1.4(j); see also, Hancock Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 13068 (1995). As noted, LULAC's application for review was filed on November 30, 1995. Thus, we reject the licensee's assertion that the application for review was due 30 days after the MO&O was signed, and, thus, should be dismissed as untimely. II. DISCUSSION 3. In the MO&O, the Commission granted KDTX-TV's renewal application "subject to whatever action the Commission deems appropriate upon final resolution of issues a and b specified in Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2475 (1993) [recon. denied, 9 FCC Rcd 2567 (1994)]" ("TBF"). In TBF, the Commission designated for hearing the renewal application for Station WHFT(TV), Miami, Florida. That station and KDTX-TV are under the common control of the Trinity Broadcast Network ("TBN"). While an Initial Decision has been issued, the matters under consideration have not been finally resolved. In TBF, the Commission stated that it would not require TBN or its affiliated licensees to file for early renewal and that it would not institute revocation proceedings against their stations. See 8 FCC Rcd at 2481. The Commission also stated in TBF that TBN and its affiliates could dispose of or acquire licenses during the pendency of WHFT(TV)'s renewal proceeding. Id. 4. LULAC argues that the Commission should designate KDTX-TV's renewal application for hearing and delay ruling on the renewal until final resolution of the renewal application for WHFT(TV). Moreover, LULAC requests that the Commission refrain from granting renewal applications for any TBN-controlled stations until the Commission resolves whether TBN or its affiliated companies are qualified to be licensees of any stations. As stated in TBF, we will not delay consideration of license renewal applications for TBN or its affiliates during the pendency of WHFT(TV)'s renewal proceeding. See TBF, 8 FCC Rcd at 2481. In addition, LULAC argues that in its petition to deny KDTX-TV's renewal application, it made a prima facie case against renewal on EEO grounds. In this regard, LULAC criticizes the licensee's EEO record for the same reasons outlined in the petition to deny. It then requests that the Commission conduct a more thorough investigation of KDTX-TV's EEO recruitment practices. Finally, LULAC argues that if the EEO investigation reveals that a "trial" is required regarding the EEO allegations, this issue can be added to the hearing for WHFT(TV). See GAF Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 1742, 1742-43 n.1 (Chief, Audio Services Division, 1993), recon. and review denied, 8 FCC Rcd 5496, 5496-97  4-5 (1993) ("GAF"). Citing TBF, the licensee responds that LULAC's arguments should be rejected and that grant of KDTX-TV's renewal application should become final. 5. After consideration of the above, we find LULAC's argument that the Commission should designate KDTX-TV's renewal application for hearing or delay action on its renewal pending final resolution of the renewal application for WHFT(TV) without merit. The MO&O held that KDTX-TV's renewal should not be delayed pending the final resolution of WHFT(TV)'s renewal on the basis of the Commission's ruling in TBF. As stated in TBF, "although the issues being specified in this case are not limited to the operation of WHFT(TV), we are not prepared, at this time, to conclude that they are so fundamental that they would affect the qualifications of ... [Trinity]... to hold any station license." TBF, 8 FCC Rcd at 2481. LULAC has failed to persuade us that the Bureau's ruling should be altered. Therefore, we uphold the Bureau's decision to grant this application, subject to whatever action the Commission deems appropriate upon final resolution of issues a and b specified in TBF, supra. 6. LULAC also did not provide evidence that the Bureau erred in finding that LULAC failed to present a prima facie case against renewal for KDTX-TV on EEO grounds. The licensee's record shows that it recruited minorities and women and self-assessed its EEO efforts. The Bureau found that there was no evidence that the licensee violated our EEO Rule or that it discriminated. LULAC has failed to provide evidence to the contrary. 7. Finally, we find that GAF does not support LULAC's request that KDTX-TV's EEO record be explored as an added issue in a hearing concerning WHFT(TV). In GAF, the Chief, Audio Services Division, designated a licensee's renewal application for hearing but simultaneously referred the licensee's EEO record to the EEO Branch for review. The Commission, in affirming, directed the Mass Media Bureau to issue a report to the Administrative Law Judge upon completion of the EEO review. In this case, the Mass Media Bureau has already considered the licensee's EEO record and determined that KDTX-TV is in compliance with our EEO Rule. LULAC's application for review does not specify any factor warranting further Commission consideration, nor does it demonstrate that the Bureau erred in its assessment of KDTX-TV's EEO efforts. See 47 C.F.R.  1.115(b)(2). Moreover, the EEO record at issue in GAF concerned the same station, whereas, the EEO record of WHFT(TV) is not at issue here. Thus, we will not add an issue in the WHFT(TV) proceeding concerning KDTX-TV's EEO record, designate KDTX-TV's renewal application for hearing, or delay action on its renewal. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. After review of the application for review and all other arguments and evidence, we find that LULAC has not shown that the Bureau's ruling was incorrect and, thus, no basis exists to warrant review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed on November 30, 1995, by LULAC IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested -- copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. and LULAC. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary